Resumo

Business strategies with a focus on stakeholders tend to generate more competitive advantage, especially by creating and sharing value with their stakeholders (Harrison et al., 2010). Based on the theory of social identification (Tajfel, 1974) we understand that ethical leadership, in addition to multiple stakeholder orientation can foster the organizational identification of employees, increasing their innovative work behavior (IWB). These concepts are related to what cooperatives believe, which are based on principles where collective interests prevail over individual ones.

The research question is: what is the role of ethical leadership and multiple stakeholder orientation in fostering innovative work behavior in the context of cooperatives? Objective: This paper aims to analyze the associations between ethical leadership, multiple stakeholder orientation and innovative work behavior in the context of Brazilian cooperatives. Specific objectives: Perform exploratory factor analysis; Employ confirmatory factor analysis; Apply structural equation modeling through the partial least squares approach. Conduct importance-performance map analysis (IPMA).

We seek to relate the concepts of cooperativism to multiple stakeholder orientation, as a construct divided into four dimensions: customer, competitor, shareholder and employee orientation (Greenley et al., 2005). The development of hypotheses goes through discussions that connect ethical leadership with multiple stakeholder orientation and innovative work behavior. Also, based on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974), we have examined how ethical leadership and multiple stakeholder orientation support employees' sense making and ultimately relate to the innovation demonstrated by them.

Steps: (1) removal of observations with missing data and potential outliers; (2) evaluation of the scale dimensions through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)-Varimax; (3) evaluation of the measurement model, which involves analyzing the convergent and discriminant validity of the model and carrying out Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA); (4) testing the structural model with a structural equation modeling method based on partial least squares (SEM-PLS); (5) examine the contributions of each construct to fostering innovation through the importance-performance map analysis (IPMA).

The results of the SEM indicates that ethical leadership is associated with higher levels of multiple stakeholder orientation. Thus, the greater the existence of ethical leadership within the organization, the higher the levels of multiple stakeholder orientation including customers, employees, competitors and shareholders. We found that the generation of innovative work behavior is fully mediated by multiple stakeholder orientation. This demonstrates the importance of bringing together the ethical leadership and stakeholder-oriented organization to increase innovative work behavior.

The results indicate that ethical leadership is associated with higher levels of multiple stakeholder orientation. In other words, the greater the existence of ethical leadership, the higher the levels of multiple stakeholder orientation including customers, employees, competitors and shareholders. We found that a company that manages stakeholders paves the way for innovation. This means that employees feel free to be more creative and innovative at work. About IPMA, four dimensions of multiple stakeholder orientation are more important for fostering IWB than ethical leadership.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2). Greenley, G. E., Hooley, G. J., & Rudd, J. M. (2005). Market orientation in a multiple stakeholder orientation context: Implications for marketing capabilities and assets. Journal of Business Research, 58(11 SPEC. ISS.). Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3).